Isn't a lot of bullying somewhat "in the eye of the beholder" - it's hard for any given person (the proposed bully) to know what another person (the bullyee) may take to heart.
I've unwittingly said some very hurtful things to some people entirely unknowingly and unintentionally.
Ultimately would a Charlotte's Law have done anything to prevent Charlotte's death?
I don't really understand depression as I've never suffered from it, but what I am fairly sure about is that it doesn't really obey the simple rules of logic and reason that we'd like to imagine it does. If Charlotte were not the subject of abuse and ridicule on Twitter and in the media, would that have necessarily changed the outcome for her, or would her mind have taken over in their absence?
I still find the idea that TVNZ (or it's staff) are taxpayer funded to be incredibly infuriating. It's simply untrue. Although in this case it's marginally more accurate than when usually levelled (because the Maori and Pacific department programming is largely funded by NZ On Air and Te Mangai Paho) it's still fundamentally untrue.
Shows how TVNZ ceased feeling like a public sector organisation many years ago. Not part of the culture.
I'd say there was a definite awareness within TVNZ that actions of staff, both on and off the job, may be scrutinized more closely because of who they work for. I'm not sure if that's because TVNZ is owned by the government, or because it's a media organisation (and other media organisations seem to delight in reporting on their competitors).
Not long after I first started working at TVNZ I created (in my own time) the "Should-A.org" website to parody the anti-smacking referendum. It got some media attention (and also a legal threat from Elections NZ) which freaked me out - I quickly talked to TVNZ legal who said they weren't worried, but it was a quick lesson for me in being careful about how my actions could potentially reflect.
I know this is a bit of a nitpick, but politically connected folks come and go all the time into the offices and meeting rooms at TVNZ. There's no way TCNZ's management could know that the purpose of any given meeting wasn't kosher without being told so by the participants.
I suspect the point is more about TVNZ staffers ever getting the idea that this might not be an absolutely inexcusable idea in the first place. Not that TVNZ managers didn't intercept and stop that specific meeting, but that they didn't perhaps make it clear enough what was and was not appropriate in this case.
That said, having been a TVNZ employee in the past, I don't think I'd have ever been under the illusion that organising political business while at work, using work resources, would have been okay.
WATCH THE FINAL TEN SECONDS OF LORDE ARRIVING AT AUCKLAND AIRPORT AND YOU WILL NEVER FEEL THE SAME AGAIN
WATCH THIS TEEN MUSICIAN RETURN HOME, YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
I do love the shot of Guy Williams waving frantically & shouting “Thanks, Lorde!”.
I was highly amused that the first question we hear her asked by a journalist in the Herald video is "How does it feel..." which is Williams' standard pointless-journo parody question.
Watching a good TV news camera operator in action can be a beautiful thing, they are really good at getting what they need, but in a situation like this where the focus is a single person in a confined area it's always going to get a bit silly.
Ultimately it likely in the future to get worse for Lorde. I hope she finds a good way of dealing with it to keep herself comfortable and safe while still managing to stay in touch with who she is.
For the NZ Herald article...
The Electoral Commission confirmed that it had provided advice to Mr Dotcom.
So it seems that the Electoral Commission are the source of the legal advice?
I'm guessing it went like this:
- Party yay
- Whaleoiil leak with free wifi detail
- "Free wifi is a bribe"
- "If free wifi is a bribe, what about a massive party for 25,000 people?"
Are there any figures on how often this defense was used successfully? I’m not trying to start a debate on it, just interested.
I'm not sure that statistics like that are ever kept, but there were a few higher profile examples involving hoses and the like. I'm sure someone can dig up details (they get a little lost in the search results these days)
My understanding is that the primary justification for the law change wasn't to criminalise parents, but was to remove a codified defense that could be (and was) used in cases of genuine child abuse.
While I haven't been paying close attention, I don't think we have any parents now with criminal records for what we'd all generally agree is "a smack".